TexasCHLforum.com

E.Marquez wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 9:53 am

True and there's the rub. Simply by associating as a member everyone is a participant but it must first be proven in court that they have actually done something that is illegal.

I think (barely but I try)aiding and abetting a criminal is a crime in TX? https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.7.htm
If so would not membership and association (actual physical proximity, interaction co activities) with those gang members who are criminals meet the intent of that law for other members?

This would be an extremely dangerous precedent since by extension you could be held liable for any crimes committed by people that you associate with.

BBYC wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 12:31 pm Well, since membership is not illegal per se, but merely denies them a "privilege" that was denied to soccer moms as recently as a dozen years ago, I have bigger fish to fry. If gang members want to petition the government to redress their grievance, they have that right.

Personally, I don't have any "bigger fish" than the protection of our fundamental human freedoms. I don't much like Democrats, but I don't want to see their rights restricted. The same goes for any other group of people that have not committed any crimes.

And I'm assuming you are being facetious by referring to the RKBA as a "privilege". If not, then we are so far apart on the underlying issue here that we probably will never see eye to eye.

BBYC wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 12:32 pm

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 11:36 am

WildRose wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 11:09 pm

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:10 pm

mojo84 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 6:44 pm It's not just the government that considers dinner of the gangs and motorcycle clubs criminal. They themselves promote the criminal aspect of their groups.

When people put 1% patches or tear drop tats on their bodies that indicate how many people they've killed, they are promoting just how criminal they are. Just because they have not been adjudicated a criminal doesn't mean they are not one.

But should we take away their rights because of this self identification alone? That is the question.

And we are not talking about rights that are granted by the government, like the right to vote. That would be trivial by comparison. We are instead talking about the government restricting a right that people are granted by their creator. If we are OK with this, then should we not also be OK with taking away their right to liberty by virtue of membership in a defined "criminal" organization. After all, such people are more likely than the average citizen to commit crimes, so locking them up proactively would make sense, would it not?

Our Second Amendment rights are not granted by gov't they can only be denied or infringed by gov't.

Licensed carry is in and itself an infringement as it places prior restrictions and qualifications on a right that is specifically protected.

We are in agreement on the fact that the RKBA is not granted by any government. It is fundamental to one's right to life, and therefore is a right that is endowed by one's creator. In the post you quoted, I was distinguishing between rights that are merely granted by government (the right to vote comes to mind as a prime example), and rights that are granted by our creator. We need to be much more careful about allowing the government to infringe on people's fundamental human rights, and the RKBA is in that category, IMHO.

Governments are formed by men to secure their God given rights. That is the sole purpose of government in the first place. No government should infringe on those rights without due process. Indeed, the founders of our country believed that when governments did otherwise and became "destructive of those rights" people have a moral obligation to overthrow that form of government and replace it with another. they also believed that these are "self evident" truths. Unfortunately, we have allowed ourselves to get far afield of these truths in the name of safety and security. That never ends well.

By that reasoning, 46.02 through 46.035 and 46.05 shouldn't exist. I agree in principle.

However, because they do exist, there are Texas laws restricting the RKBA of law abiding surgeons, plumbers and soccer moms. So I can't get worked up over RKBA of people who choose to join groups who commit violent crimes, especially when that affiliation needs to be proven in court to prosecute.

So then where do we draw the line. Do we restrict the right to carry for members of a group whose leaders have called for people to gather as groups in order to harass and intimidate others (aka Democrats)? What about members of a group whose leaders have publicly stated that they would instruct members to use their arrest powers against people who they know are not violating any laws (a number of police forces throughout the state, and also the country)? Do we tell democrats and certain cops that they have lost the right to carry a gun? Just because they belong to a political party or are part of a specific police force?

What about any other groups that are opposed by the folks who happen to be in the political majority at a given time? Should the majority be able to legislate away their rights even though they have not even been accused of a crime?

A similar argument could easily be made for restricting other rights, including the right to vote.

To me, it's simple. Commit a crime and we should use our government to restrict your rights. But membership in any group, alone, should not justify restrictions on your rights.

WildRose wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 11:09 pm

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:10 pm

mojo84 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 6:44 pm It's not just the government that considers dinner of the gangs and motorcycle clubs criminal. They themselves promote the criminal aspect of their groups.

When people put 1% patches or tear drop tats on their bodies that indicate how many people they've killed, they are promoting just how criminal they are. Just because they have not been adjudicated a criminal doesn't mean they are not one.

But should we take away their rights because of this self identification alone? That is the question.

And we are not talking about rights that are granted by the government, like the right to vote. That would be trivial by comparison. We are instead talking about the government restricting a right that people are granted by their creator. If we are OK with this, then should we not also be OK with taking away their right to liberty by virtue of membership in a defined "criminal" organization. After all, such people are more likely than the average citizen to commit crimes, so locking them up proactively would make sense, would it not?

Our Second Amendment rights are not granted by gov't they can only be denied or infringed by gov't.

Licensed carry is in and itself an infringement as it places prior restrictions and qualifications on a right that is specifically protected.

We are in agreement on the fact that the RKBA is not granted by any government. It is fundamental to one's right to life, and therefore is a right that is endowed by one's creator. In the post you quoted, I was distinguishing between rights that are merely granted by government (the right to vote comes to mind as a prime example), and rights that are granted by our creator. We need to be much more careful about allowing the government to infringe on people's fundamental human rights, and the RKBA is in that category, IMHO.

Governments are formed by men to secure their God given rights. That is the sole purpose of government in the first place. No government should infringe on those rights without due process. Indeed, the founders of our country believed that when governments did otherwise and became "destructive of those rights" people have a moral obligation to overthrow that form of government and replace it with another. they also believed that these are "self evident" truths. Unfortunately, we have allowed ourselves to get far afield of these truths in the name of safety and security. That never ends well.

mojo84 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 6:44 pm It's not just the government that considers dinner of the gangs and motorcycle clubs criminal. They themselves promote the criminal aspect of their groups.

When people put 1% patches or tear drop tats on their bodies that indicate how many people they've killed, they are promoting just how criminal they are. Just because they have not been adjudicated a criminal doesn't mean they are not one.

But should we take away their rights because of this self identification alone? That is the question.

And we are not talking about rights that are granted by the government, like the right to vote. That would be trivial by comparison. We are instead talking about the government restricting a right that people are granted by their creator. If we are OK with this, then should we not also be OK with taking away their right to liberty by virtue of membership in a defined "criminal" organization. After all, such people are more likely than the average citizen to commit crimes, so locking them up proactively would make sense, would it not?

I have no love for gang members. But it just seems fundamentally anti-American for the government to take away peoples' God given rights because they are members of a group. If you have committed a crime, then yes it is appropriate to punish you by taking away your pursuit of Happiness, your Liberty, and maybe even your Life. But mere membership in a group that is considered by the government to be "criminal"? I'd say no.

This is a very dangerous path, IMHO.

ELB wrote: ↑Fri Sep 28, 2018 1:01 pmETA: Texas law defines "criminal street gang" as

d) “Criminal street gang” means three or more persons having a common identifying sign or symbol or an identifiable leadership who continuously or regularly associate in the commission of criminal activities.

Waller county has an identifiable leadership right? So that should make all members of their county council ineligible to carry under the MPA.